Maltby MPF Scoring

[KurtActual]

Does anyone here put value to the Maltby MPF scores?

TLDR: They take factors from a club head and give it a playability rating. 

I looked up my current gamers, Nike VR-S Forged (http://ralphmaltby.com/mpf/nike/page/2/) and they score a 441.

Comparing this number to the MPF brackets (http://ralphmaltby.com/what-is-mpf/ )

• Ultra Game Improvement: 851 & Up - All Players Benefit
• Super Game Improvement: 701 - 850 - All Players Benefit
• Game Improvement: 551 - 700 - All Players Benefit
• Conventional: 401 - 550 - Better Players Only
• Classic: 251 - 400 - Difficult To Play
• Player Classic: 0 - 250 - Not Recommended

It looks like I am playing clubs with an MPF recommended for players better than my current game. 

So... should I put a lot of value in the MPF scores when looking at new clubs?

[Hook DeLoft]

You'll find a lot of disagreement on this.  Many find Maltby's ratings to be useful.  Many don't.  The forgiveness ratings do put a lot of emphasis on the vertical center of gravity.  All else being equal (of course, it never is), a clubhead with a lower center of gravity will be rated as more forgiving.  If you hit down on the ball with good clubhead speed and get plenty of height, a low center of gravity may not work for you, even if you tend to miss the center of the club face.  Lot of factors involved.

[pozzit]

I am undecided on MPF. I really like the idea of being able to compare clubs based on the fundamental geometry but think there are some flaws with MPF making assumptions of what makes the best parameters are. The fundamentals are around helping golfers get the ball airborne like @Hook DeLoft mentions. 

Center of Mass is everything to MPF. Having a long blade with more weight on the toe side and low COG is optimal. Since the hosel is heavy and is not the club face it pulls a lot of weight away from the center of the face (where most believe is the center of mass)

Use it as a basic guideline but comparing one of the most visually SGI irons the Wilson Launchpad irons are 518 MPF and MP-33 blade is 419 MPF both fall into the Better Players Only Category. Ralph Maltby also mentioned most wouldn't be able to distinguish a 100 MPF point difference.

[TR1PTIK]

2 hours ago, KurtActual said:

Does anyone here put value to the Maltby MPF scores?

TLDR: They take factors from a club head and give it a playability rating. 

I looked up my current gamers, Nike VR-S Forged (http://ralphmaltby.com/mpf/nike/page/2/) and they score a 441.

Comparing this number to the MPF brackets (http://ralphmaltby.com/what-is-mpf/ )

• Ultra Game Improvement: 851 & Up - All Players Benefit
• Super Game Improvement: 701 - 850 - All Players Benefit
• Game Improvement: 551 - 700 - All Players Benefit
• Conventional: 401 - 550 - Better Players Only
• Classic: 251 - 400 - Difficult To Play
• Player Classic: 0 - 250 - Not Recommended

It looks like I am playing clubs with an MPF recommended for players better than my current game. 

So... should I put a lot of value in the MPF scores when looking at new clubs?

I hadn't ever looked at this before, but based on what I just saw it's total bull crap. My gamers - Nike Vapor Pro Combo have an MPF rating of 119. The Nike Vapor Speed - a GI/SGI club has an MPF of 116.

Either I'm one heck of a ball striker (I'm not) or this is just pure nonsense put together with the intention of making golf club selection easier while not actually accomplishing anything at all.

I also couldn't help but notice that all Maltby clubs had an MPF rating of 700 or above with the exception of the Logic Pro Tour (537), HP Forged (636), Logic Tradition M-04 (628), Peak Velocity (628), Tricept F1 Forged (635), and Tricept F2 Forged (759).

[russtopherb]

I don't. Over the years there have been a lot of very clearly SGI clubs that he's put in the conventional category. The W/S clubs mentioned above are just one of many examples. I stopped paying attention to those ratings quite some time ago.

[KurtActual]

Thanks for the input gents.

The list made me interested in the difference between true club design (COG, MOI, etc) and marketing design (Forged in the name or displayed on the iron, colors/materials used, cavity back that isnt optimized, etc)

My clubs, for example, are cavity back and forged, but are they as forgiving or do they provide all the benefits that I could get from another GI iron?

[TR1PTIK]

11 minutes ago, KurtActual said:

Thanks for the input gents.

The list made me interested in the difference between true club design (COG, MOI, etc) and marketing design (Forged in the name or displayed on the iron, colors/materials used, cavity back that isnt optimized, etc)

My clubs, for example, are cavity back and forged, but are they as forgiving or do they provide all the benefits that I could get from another GI iron?

IMO you could probably get an equally forgiving club in a more attractive package if you moved up a few years simply because of the mass adoption of tungsten and various types of polymers, but there is nothing wrong with the clubs you have based on your current handicap. My biggest question to you would be have you every taken the clubs to a fitter to check loft and lie angles? 

[KurtActual]

2 hours ago, TR1PTIK said:

IMO you could probably get an equally forgiving club in a more attractive package if you moved up a few years simply because of the mass adoption of tungsten and various types of polymers, but there is nothing wrong with the clubs you have based on your current handicap. My biggest question to you would be have you every taken the clubs to a fitter to check loft and lie angles? 

Very good point. I went from a Costco box set to these Nikes, so the improvement there was huge. I imagine the same improvement could be expected by jumping to more current design and technology. Cost is the only thing preventing that upgrade, haha.

Haven't had them checked, as the yardage gapping is about as expected.

[HardcoreLooper]

The idea of reducing playability to a formula is nice, but I wonder if this has been updated since it came out.  I feel like technology has probably outpaced the formula.  I'm interested to see how the Wilson D7 Forged (438) will compare to the Cobra F8 (699) I'm currently playing.  I'll be sure to let everyone know in the review thread.

 

[KurtActual]

The idea of reducing playability to a formula is nice, but I wonder if this has been updated since it came out.  I feel like technology has probably outpaced the formula.  I'm interested to see how the Wilson D7 Forged (438) will compare to the Cobra F8 (699) I'm currently playing.  I'll be sure to let everyone know in the review thread.
[/url]  

I feel like you could explain how technology moves the formula at any time. Tungsten, weight placement, etc will all change center of gravity. Foam filling, Milled faces, etc will change MOI.
In theory, the formula could compare all club heads on the same scale at any time, which is what makes me so interested in it.
I think the issue for me is the ability to verify it.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[AmishJason]

I've never looked at the MPF ratings for irons, but I came across one for shafts.  There was a shaft finder quiz with it that asked a couple basic questions that were a little different than most online selection quizzes and it came up with only two results.  One was a highly exotic and high priced option and I think the other was something that is out of production.  It left me wondering if the MPF list for shafts was even relevant.

[cnosil]

I've never looked at the MPF ratings for irons, but I came across one for shafts.  There was a shaft finder quiz with it that asked a couple basic questions that were a little different than most online selection quizzes and it came up with only two results.  One was a highly exotic and high priced option and I think the other was something that is out of production.  It left me wondering if the MPF list for shafts was even relevant.

What was your MPF for shafts? I got several pages of shafts. If you wanted to go this route you could see the characteristics if the shafts it recommends and try to match something.

[AmishJason]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

What was your MPF for shafts? I got several pages of shafts. If you wanted to go this route you could see the characteristics if the shafts it recommends and try to match something.

I will absolutely hold onto that offer.  I don't remember the end result that I received.  Later today I will try to go back through the quiz.  One thing about night shift, I'm winding down as the rest of the world winds up.

And I have to say my favorite thing about these forums is the amount of information that's freely available.  Every time I think I'm done for a bit, I find a new rabbit hole to fall down and get lost in.

[null]

On 9/4/2020 at 11:30 AM, KurtActual said:

Does anyone here put value to the Maltby MPF scores?

TLDR: They take factors from a club head and give it a playability rating. 

I looked up my current gamers, Nike VR-S Forged (http://ralphmaltby.com/mpf/nike/page/2/) and they score a 441.

Comparing this number to the MPF brackets (http://ralphmaltby.com/what-is-mpf/ )

• Ultra Game Improvement: 851 & Up - All Players Benefit
• Super Game Improvement: 701 - 850 - All Players Benefit
• Game Improvement: 551 - 700 - All Players Benefit
• Conventional: 401 - 550 - Better Players Only
• Classic: 251 - 400 - Difficult To Play
• Player Classic: 0 - 250 - Not Recommended

It looks like I am playing clubs with an MPF recommended for players better than my current game. 

So... should I put a lot of value in the MPF scores when looking at new clubs?

Short answer: No

Long answer:  It is fun to read and compare, but no.  Especially when you realize that his clubs tend to score better than others.

[cnosil]

I will absolutely hold onto that offer.  I don't remember the end result that I received.  Later today I will try to go back through the quiz.  One thing about night shift, I'm winding down as the rest of the world winds up.

And I have to say my favorite thing about these forums is the amount of information that's freely available.  Every time I think I'm done for a bit, I find a new rabbit hole to fall down and get lost in.

Yep, tons of info. I spend time going across sites to find things that a comparable. Find a shaft on one site and then find another site that has that shaft and others. I used some site called something like true golf fit (not the MGS site, but one that I found searching for the MGS site). I did their fitting and the shaft that was recommended for me at CC was included. I then went to another site that I can remember and put in that shaft and others and it told you how well the shaft fit. Lots of stuff on the Internet...some good and some bad.

[fixyurdivot]

On 9/4/2020 at 10:34 AM, pozzit said:

Ralph Maltby also mentioned most wouldn't be able to distinguish a 100 MPF point difference

This is a pretty significant statement given the numeric difference between clubs not at opposite ends of the "playability" range.  That said, I do like the basic concept of using physical mass/dimension properties to rate clubs and feel it is mostly sound.  What it does not account for is how a club will perform based on player swing mechanics and, more importantly, the effect of the shaft it's attached to.

[pozzit]

2 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

This is a pretty significant statement given the numeric difference between clubs not at opposite ends of the "playability" range.  That said, I do like the basic concept of using physical mass/dimension properties to rate clubs and feel it is mostly sound.  What it does not account for is how a club will perform based on player swing mechanics and, more importantly, the effect of the shaft it's attached to.

Alright well i guess the quote was officially 100+ points would be the point where it would be noticeable. http://ralphmaltby.com/forum/question/noticeability-of-mpf/

I think what would be best would be rather then a higher is more best scale it should be a matrix of hitting principles. Lets say if your a toe striker vs need to get the ball up or your a digger. this would be a way to help give golfers a better idea to relate it instead of simply a specific score. 

[KurtActual]

15 minutes ago, pozzit said:

Alright well i guess the quote was officially 100+ points would be the point where it would be noticeable. http://ralphmaltby.com/forum/question/noticeability-of-mpf/

I think what would be best would be rather then a higher is more best scale it should be a matrix of hitting principles. Lets say if your a toe striker vs need to get the ball up or your a digger. this would be a way to help give golfers a better idea to relate it instead of simply a specific score. 

Perhaps I am either over-simplifying it to myself, or am just dead wrong; I feel like the numbers used to generate the MPF cover those topics. Toe striker? You need a larger "C" dimension, as that is the measure of distance between the shaft & hosel and the center of gravity of the club face. 

http://ralphmaltby.com/comparing-playability-of-two-iron-designs/

Things like launch can be addressed with the shaft.

 

Edit: Another factor that makes MPF interesting to me, is that companies send Maltby the iron head to be tested. Maltby isn't going out and buying these Titleist T300 heads to test.

[fixyurdivot]

11 minutes ago, pozzit said:

Alright well i guess the quote was officially 100+ points would be the point where it would be noticeable. http://ralphmaltby.com/forum/question/noticeability-of-mpf/

I think what would be best would be rather then a higher is more best scale it should be a matrix of hitting principles. Lets say if your a toe striker vs need to get the ball up or your a digger. this would be a way to help give golfers a better idea to relate it instead of simply a specific score. 

Ok, it seems absolutely clear to me that we need to develop a MGS Playability Factor.  We should have almost no issue getting consensus on criteria .  We just need someone to head this up with expertise in herding cats.  

[pozzit]

5 minutes ago, KurtActual said:

Perhaps I am either over-simplifying it to myself, or am just dead wrong; I feel like the numbers used to generate the MPF cover those topics. Toe striker? You need a larger "C" dimension, as that is the measure of distance between the shaft & hosel and the center of gravity of the club face. 

http://ralphmaltby.com/comparing-playability-of-two-iron-designs/

Things like launch can be addressed with the shaft.

 

Edit: Another factor that makes MPF interesting to me, is that companies send Maltby the iron head to be tested. Maltby isn't going out and buying these Titleist T300 heads to test.

I completely agree but unless you decide you want to dive deep into how MPF is determined that is not clear to most users. Obviously there are other factors that MPF ignores such as sole width, blade length, shaft and others that play a big role as well but it just gets more and more complicated.

4 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Ok, it seems absolutely clear to me that we need to develop a MGS Playability Factor.  We should have almost no issue getting consensus on criteria .  We just need someone to head this up with expertise in herding cats.  

Yes Yes and Yes. Part of my Golf Physics deep dive is to have some sort of understanding of the main factors and how they truly impact the golfer. I think this would go a long way in also helping MGS get irons in TrueGolfFit 

[KurtActual]

Reading a post on MPF on another website has led me to believe a few things:

1. Ping players hate Maltby and his MPF.

2. MPF should be considered the higher your handicap.

3. MPF might be biased (and therefore virtually useless), but the measurements used to calculate it are gold. 

 

A quote from the other thread that I really valued:

 

It's real simple. In general, you can make the biggest cavity back, with the most massive MOI,....but if the sweetspot is located in an area that is hard to find from normal fairway lies, then it will be harder to hit than many small blades.

 

The center of a golf ball is .840". If an iron has a sweetspot that is .950" high, how many players are going to consistently hit that club solid? Not too many, including the best players.

 

The MPF is mostly about efficient sweetspot (COG) location. A higher MOI can slightly enhance a good sweetspot,....it does not make up for a bad one

[pozzit]

56 minutes ago, KurtActual said:

Reading a post on MPF on another website has led me to believe a few things:

1. Ping players hate Maltby and his MPF.

2. MPF should be considered the higher your handicap.

3. MPF might be biased (and therefore virtually useless), but the measurements used to calculate it are gold. 

 

A quote from the other thread that I really valued:

 

 

Those are some interesting view points II dont know that I would have deduced those same points but I agree with 2 & 3, if you mean biased to specific geometry. If you mean biased in the fact that Maltby has high numbers I disagree, If a brand has a formula for what you think is best for the player why not maximize it?

[NRJyzr]

MPF is actually pretty straightforward.  The overall score is essentially a grade of how close a design is to the principles Ralph Maltby believes in.  Those being, a low CG that's some distance from the hosel.  GW designs rating well isn't some form of favoritism, or anything along those lines, it's that Ralph Maltby is designing clubheads that follow Ralph Maltby's preferences.   LOL 

And there's nothing about turf interaction in there.  Might be hard to add to a formula.

What it is *not* is a measure of forgiveness.  What most refer to as forgiveness is found in the MOI measurement published as part of MPF data, the resistance to twisting on off center hits.  MOI is a part of the overall formula, but it isn't a major factor.  It seems Mr Maltby doesn't feel MOI is as important as CG location.

CG location and C Dimension can be quite helpful in finding clubheads that work, or do not work, for a given golfer's swing.  Sweepers maybe should avoid a high CG, those who hit on toe look for larger C-Dim, etc.

If you really want forgiveness, look at MOI.

[null]

47 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

The overall score is essentially a grade of how close a design is to the principles Ralph Maltby believes in.  Those being, a low CG that's some distance from the hosel.  GW designs rating well isn't some form of favoritism, or anything along those lines, it's that Ralph Maltby is designing clubheads that follow Ralph Maltby's preferences.   

This sums it up nicely 

[KurtActual]

I suppose I meant biased as in MPF is not science based.

The numbers used in the calculation are scientific, but the formula is based on Maltby's opinion on what makes a club more playable. 

I've REALLY enjoyed reading people's opinions on it all, and I would say generally I agree with Maltby's ideas.

[AmishJason]

@cnosil, I went back and used the shaft finder on Golf Works.  It seems that I misunderstood the results the first go around.  The lack of results was from searching the Golf Works website for shafts that fit the results I was given.  This time around I managed to find the PDF files that listed shafts by their MPF scores.  I also got a different result this time because my tendencies and thus desires have changed.  I was given a 3C2S because my mindset at the time was I wanted all the help I could get fighting a nasty slice.  Since then, I've spent a lot of time on the range trying and succeeding at eliminating that slice.  Simply going on yardage and not driver swing speed my score could be either a 3B2M or 4B2M now as I kind of straddle the border with a 145 yard 8 iron and a 155 yard 7 iron.  

[cnosil]

[mention=15174]cnosil[/mention], I went back and used the shaft finder on Golf Works.  It seems that I misunderstood the results the first go around.  The lack of results was from searching the Golf Works website for shafts that fit the results I was given.  This time around I managed to find the PDF files that listed shafts by their MPF scores.  I also got a different result this time because my tendencies and thus desires have changed.  I was given a 3C2S because my mindset at the time was I wanted all the help I could get fighting a nasty slice.  Since then, I've spent a lot of time on the range trying and succeeding at eliminating that slice.  Simply going on yardage and not driver swing speed my score could be either a 3B2M or 4B2M now as I kind of straddle the border with a 145 yard 8 iron and a 155 yard 7 iron.  

Based on your selections you are in the same category as I aM 4B2M. Just remember a shaft isn’t going to fix a slice, that requires swing changes.

The real question is now what? What criteria do you use to narrow down the list you have? I am not a shaft person but I wouldn’t know which would work best without getting them on a launch motor and comparing. For example on the list is the pro force V2 and the KBS TD; I have both and the perform a little differently. I got the TD in a lighter weight because the V2 didn’t launch high enough. I recently tested the TD on a launch monitor and overall it gives me better launch numbers. One retails for $60 and the other $325.

[Hook DeLoft]

i.e. the shaft ratings, what characteristics would make a shaft help correct a hook or slice? 

[AmishJason]

6 hours ago, cnosil said:

 

Based on your selections you are in the same category as I aM 4B2M. Just remember a shaft isn’t going to fix a slice, that requires swing changes.

The real question is now what? What criteria do you use to narrow down the list you have? I am not a shaft person but I wouldn’t know which would work best without getting them on a launch motor and comparing. For example on the list is the pro force V2 and the KBS TD; I have both and the perform a little differently. I got the TD in a lighter weight because the V2 didn’t launch high enough. I recently tested the TD on a launch monitor and overall it gives me better launch numbers. One retails for $60 and the other $325.

 

I was actually using the MPF scores to look at iron shafts.  I still have misses that can go both ways with my irons, however with them it is more about under/over rotation of my upper body.  The shaft I've come across that interests me the most is in fact on both 4B2M and 3B2M and kind of makes me more comfortable with the idea of it depending on what hard data shows I need.  I could even go up to high launch instead of mid launch because mid launch is just what fits my eyes better as I can find my ball in flight easiest with the mid launch shafts I have hit on demo clubs.  Before I get too side tracked, I'll point out that True Temper's AMT Black is the shaft that has my attention the most.  I like the idea of lighter weight long iron shafts so long as they don't destroy my accuracy.  I would also like to add that it's interesting how many graphite irons shafts are in the 4B2M rating.

 My driver was what gave me the most trouble with slices and I ended up putting in the work to reign it in to a much more manageable level.  

[Popeye64]

If you can find the center of the face on a regular basis then the MPF won't make much of a difference to you.
I did a lot of comparison between the Hogan PTx Pro heads compared to the Maltby PTM while they were on the bench. In every aspect you can see why the Hogans score so low and the PTMs score so high.
Over all blade length of the PTM is much longer. Taller face. Far shorter hosel length. All those add up to a much higher MOI. What you can't see is a LCOG that is right in the center of the face. All of these add up to make the PTM much easier to hit off center. Which is something that the MPF shows in clubs.
Hitting the Hogans took me a while to get used to them. I had to find the face on a regular basis to get them to work. I can have a lazy swing and get the PTMs to work. Can't do that with the Hogans. But once I learned what the Hogans,, like they are amazing.
Almost all of the OEMs send their heads to Maltby to be measured for the MPF. That alone should say something.
The MPF is simply a guide. No different than any other. It gives you a reference.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk